Pox on both your Poohs

This case is one of those examples of just how little childrens’ books have to do with the business world, despite the billions that said books make for major entertainment companies.


In an ongoing action between the owners of the Pooh (yes, the orange bear who loves honey) rights and Disney, the current users of the property, a judge today in Los Angeles came down largely in favor of the rights owners. While Disney says it will appeal, things are going very much against Disney so far. It is looking like a big-footed behemoth and is entirely unsympathetic.


Mind you, as this January, 2003, Fortune magazine article made clear, Shirley Slesinger Lasswell, a 79-year-old widow whose husband aquired the Pooh rights from A.A. Milne in 1930, is a shrewish nutbar.

Play economic deity, move markets, etc.

The surgically-enhanced version of my “Greenspan-in-a-box” is now up and running online here. While I may be the only one entertainined by it, it certainly pleases the heck out of me to click on Alan Greenspan’s head and generate such magnificently loopy economic dross as the following:


“The Committee is somewhat convinced that a restrictive stance of monetary policy, coupled with significant underlying growth in high-beta stocks, is providing worrisome support to economic activity.”

Reagan quote: “It was your flip turn that did it”

Second-from-bottom item in  this Lloyd Grove WashPost piece is a touching anecdote about former president Ronald Reagan and Alzheimer’s. Apparently the first time his son, Ron Jr., beat Ron Sr., swimming in the home pool was when the former was 12 and the latter was 59.



While the ex-president is now, apparently, bed-ridden, mute, and has forgotten most of the last few decades, in 1995 he still remembered the event that changed the balance in his relationship with his son: that swimming race. “It was your flip turn that did it,” Ronald Reagan told his son. “Till then, you know, we were even.”

Agenda-based business reporting

Can a disgruntled former 1990s entrepreneur report objectively on his former stomping ground, business conferences? Judging by this WSJ piece, the answer is “No”. The author tries for an irony-fuelled Michael Lewis observational approach, but it quickly becomes obvious that he has an axe to grind with pretty much everyone, from academics, to consultants, to entrepreneurs.


While that might be somewhat forgivable if his prose was strong, it’s not. For example, consider the folllowing snippet. It is about how wearying it has become to listen to entrepreneurs du jour babble about their success:



” … business celebrities looked amazingly alike — a young man, wearing an alternately smug and startled expression, tousled hair and Banana Republic clothes accompanied by a posse of equally young and self-important “handlers” masquerading as a management team. (I am afraid I played the latter role at least one too many times.)”


This wants to be good stuff, but instead it teeters and then falls into cliches, replete with “tousled hair” and “self-important” entrepreneurs. Of course they are that way — I have only read it two or three million times already though.

He has two choices: deliver fresher observations, or give more of himself, assuming he can control his obvious frustration at not being up on the stage.

Ambling innovation: the multi-blade razor

The latest developments in the razor market are interesting. We have gone from twin-blade razors, to triple-blade razors, and now we have the first examples of four-blade razors.


While consumer novelty and pointless innovations are important parts of a functioning economy, I’m worried we are rapidly approaching a dangerous cusp. What happens as we go beyond four blades? Assuming that the size of the blade reservoir –the face of the razor is clearly a function of n (f(n)), where is n the number of parallel blades – stays constant, and is also dual-sized asymptotically decline, then we are governed by the following relationship for the efficacy of the razor:


Razorishness


In short, after a certain point, assuming that the razor face doesn’t grow to the size of a volleyball net, an increasing number of blades will have a deleterious effect on the efficacy of the razor. In the limit, as any solution of the above limit shows, the razor will become all blade.


The implications are very serious, including, possibly, that razors will at some point become effectively single-blade again — albeit one very large blade. Why is no-one talking about this?

Instant Alan (Greenspan)

For “research reasons” I’ve been going over the last few years’ Greenspan-helmed Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) statements. Along the way I was reminded just how consistent the structure of FOMC statements are.


Matter of fact, they are so consistent that I was able to put together a grammar around FOMC statements. I then wrote a short script, sort of like “Greenspan in a box” in that it generates instant FOMC comments.


Here is a snippet from one statement that popped out a moment ago:



“The Committee continues to believe that an accomodative stance of monetary policy, coupled with baffling underlying growth in high-beta stocks, is providing career-boosting support to economic activity.”


No, I have no idea what it means either, but it tickled my fancy. If I get the time, I’ll put it on the website so others can play with it.

The changing economics of spam

An interesting Wall Street Journal story today on the “Buffalo Spammer”, a fellow who was rotating through multiple Earthlink accounts sending millions of spam messages. Apparently the WSJ story was very well-timed: he was hit with $14mm in fines late today.


That is, of course, interesting in and of itself. But more interesting, to me anyway, is the changing economics this will create for spammers.


Historically spam has been a free-rider on the email networks: the rest of us have paid the freight for email users who flooded network capacity far in excess of their monthly charges. There were many solutions, but ISPs were uninterested in them, things like charging per megabyte, charging for over a certain number of email messages being sent per day/week/month, and so on.


Instead ISPs responded by kicking users off their networks. In effect, they forced spammers to open new accounts with new stolen credit cards or forged identities (or both). This was sometimes effective in the short term, but it wasn’t much of a long-run deterrence. Specifically, it imposed negligible costs, and it didn’t eliminate the free-rider problem. It was sort of like kicking vandals out of your house rather than prosecuting them.


Now, however, with Earthlink successfully bringing suit against a profligate spammer, it will almost certainly help to make those exogenous costs endogenous for the spammer. They must worry that, if caught, they will face similarly high penalties, rather than simply being kicked out for sending emails.


But there is still one worry: look at how much effort was involved on Earthlink’s part in tracking down this one spammer. It was very, very costly. While it wasn’t “$14mm costly”, it was certainly at least a million dollars. Small ISPs will rarely do a Clifford Stoll and seek such interlopers out, so it is unclear to me, in the absence of better email tracking, how effective Earthlink’s action will end up being.

SARS update: Lancet data, etc.

A SARS update: As I have been saying, the outbreak is now largely a China problem, as the following graph shows (full data is here):


Doubling


Most significant recent news was the (marginally flawed) Lancet study showing that mortality rates are much higher than early reports led many to think. Far from being percentages in the low single digits, they are actually more like 55 per cent in infected people over 60 years old, and 13 per cent in infected people aged under 60. The study also showed that a reasonable incubation period was more like 14 days than 10, as is currently used. Finally, study showed the remarkably long hospital stays associated with the disease, as the following figure shows:


Hospitalization


Why is this interesting? Because it shows the societal and healthcare costs imposed by an outbreak. It would be easy to imagine how a concentrated outbreak could quickly fill all beds and impose serious economic consequences on a system ill-equipped to cope.

The trouble with CSS

Geek note: Great, savvy comments from Tim Bray on the pluses and minuses of dealing with Cascading Style Sheets (CSS). Like democracy, they’re better than the alternatives, but that’s not necessarily saying much.


Two key points that he makes:



  • CSS is harder to maintain than either content or computer programs. Personally, I find them nightmarish, and it’s so-so easy for a CSS document to descend into meaninglessness.
  • When you make a change and the resulting CSS doc blows up your page, there is really no straightforward way to debug the causal chain. Had that happen the other day for this site and finally had to regress back to a known working copy, despite making only minor changes.

Venture capital continues the slide

Venture capital is rapidly becoming a derelict industry. News this week that a partner in a major Boston fund recently moved out to play “house” in South Carolina. And more news today that the first quarter of the year followed recent trends: the amount of money has declined every quarter since early 2000.


Other facts:



  • There has been one public-offering for a venture-backed company since January of 2003, down from 262 in the same period during 2000
  • There were 623 venture deals in Q1, the smallest number since 1996
  • Workshops on obtaining goverment grants are now a growth business